From: nostalgia-nz
To: kalnovitch
Subject:
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:08:56 +1300
Hi Kal,
I see you are also member of the counterspin site and you posted your email address there for contact. Throughout the day there has been some activity over there and I wrote two letters to Kent Parker, I understand the letters are available, along with a few posts, I made there, to 'priviliged members' of that site. If you care to request them I understand Kent, camp mother, will forward them on. Should you decide to read them I guess you'll understand that among the stalkers and harassers I was mentioning to Kent was you, when you mentioned going to Wellington and wishing to meet up with people for a chat and cup of coffee. It's quite a site you have going there and I guess other members congratulate you on your performance but it really needs to be abandoned or tidied up because it has gone way over the line to the point where members consider they can act illegaly with impunity. It's frightening for the people you have targetted in this way Kal. It's all in the letter anyway and I hope you take the opportunity to read it. I don't think you had any ambition to begin harassing people in the beginning, but that's where it has ended, you need to take stock. It's one thing having strong opinions, but belonging to a hate site is hardly warranted and I suspect that wasn't your intention when you started out. My own opinion is that you've been drawn into something that is uncontrolable and I seriously doubt that anything of this sort has featured in your life before. I'm sure you'd agree that we must all respect the Law and the right for a person to have his guilt or innocence decided by a Jury, and not by the uninformed or bitter. Also the right for a person to express an opinion without an offer of someone coming to their city to have a cup of coffee with them. Is that really you Kal?
In the meantime all the best, lol and all that stuff that amuses you.
Nos.
Much was made of the above letter to Kalnovitch the, 'little gang' claimed a number of things about it until it was finally published on TM when most fell silent. When kalnovitch returned she made all sorts of claims about the letter again, that the above wasn't the letter, that the letter was to her daughter (whom, I had therefore stalked) and so on. Similarly, she went on attack to another outed poster on TM whose children Kalnovitch had named.
I don't know Kalnovitch at all. When she began posting it was very obvious she was a friend of golfergold (another, since banned, twice for stalking.) They were among the originals of the first hate-site formed David Bain Free Forums. Kalnovitch use to like to post body counts and predict what bodies would be doing in their graves. Each day she would make proclamations about her fight for the victims and very soon be on the attack against them, Laniet and Margaret in particular. In the beginning Kalnovitch use to ask people not to use bad language and so forth but slowly over time her manner of posting changed. Some have said she became 'nostified,' of course if she did that was her choice. But when the stalking and outing began I genuinely thought she would have known where to draw the line.
The fact that she didn't is a good illustration of what hate-sites and crusades of persecution can possibly do to average folk if they're not careful. Being full of righteous indignation for victims you may not have known, believing that God - or some God or degree of right was on your side, all lead to lack of objectivity and finally to a descent to a place lower that which you imagine your victims habitate. It's clear that some people need to be protected from themselves, that they're vulnerable to a 'grand mission or crusade for good' as hate-sites and their members provide.
In essence that is why I believe the Justice Department have been remiss in their duty to the public and to Justice. The Department should never have allowed public vilification of the Jury, David Bain and others. The van Beynan article should have resulted in legal proceedings because it attacked the judicial system, a Judge, members of the Bar, Court Staff, the Jury even witnesses. All of which set the tone, in my opinion for what has followed, defamatory harassment and cybermedia persecution of a number of people, some who simply did their duty to the Adminstration of Justice. My assertation on this raises another question, was their any self-interest for The Department to see the verdict and jury attacked? That option might worry me most of all, why didn't they act? Perhaps in the same way it has been reported that The Department (but only after a complaint by a juror) warned The Press, and van Beynan in particular it seems, to stay away from members of the ChCh jury after the trial because the Juror felt harassed and pressured.
You comment here that the nature of Kalnovitch's behaviour changed over time. There is a process known as 'communal reinforcement', and it appears that Kalnovitch and many others have been susceptible to its effects. The Skeptic's dictionary defines this as: "the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims.
ReplyDeleteCommunal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties."
I suspect that what we are witnessing here is an example of communal reinforcement: akin to mass hysteria. The role of the media - complicit and exacerbating, is significant. It is what happened in the case of Peter Ellis, as has been well-documented. Now that, interestingly, leads to another 'player' common to both this case and the Peter Ellis case: Martin van Beynen. A journalist who is active in both cases. You have outlined your objections to his article, used a a resource by the hate sites. He has apologised for his role in the Peter Ellis case. Will we yet see him apologise for his similar role in the Bain case? How much damage will be done first?